Personal Jurisdiction
Personal jurisdiction is the court's power over a particular defendant, requiring that the defendant have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state such that exercising jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice under the Due Process Clause.
Exam Tip
Personal jurisdiction = "minimum contacts + fair play." Specific = claim arises from contacts. General = "at home" (incorporation or principal place of business). California long-arm = constitutional limits.
What is Personal Jurisdiction?
Personal jurisdiction (also called "in personam jurisdiction") is the constitutional requirement that a court have authority over a specific defendant before it can enter a binding judgment against that person. Unlike subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction can be waived if not timely raised.
Constitutional Basis
The Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments limit when courts can exercise personal jurisdiction. The landmark case International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) established the modern framework.
Types of Personal Jurisdiction
| Type | Basis | Scope |
|---|---|---|
| General Jurisdiction | Systematic and continuous contacts | Any claim, even unrelated to forum |
| Specific Jurisdiction | Claim arises from forum contacts | Only claims arising from those contacts |
| Transient (Tag) Jurisdiction | Physical presence when served | Traditional basis, still valid |
Specific Jurisdiction Test (Three-Part)
| Element | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Purposeful Availment | Defendant deliberately availed itself of forum benefits |
| Arising From | Claim arises out of or relates to forum contacts |
| Reasonableness | Exercise of jurisdiction is fair |
Reasonableness Factors (Burger King/World-Wide Volkswagen)
- Burden on defendant
- Forum state's interest
- Plaintiff's interest in convenient relief
- Interstate judicial system's interest in efficient resolution
- Shared interest in substantive social policies
General Jurisdiction (Daimler AG v. Bauman, 2014)
Corporation is subject to general jurisdiction only where it is "essentially at home":
- State of incorporation
- Principal place of business
- Exceptional cases: forum is surrogate for home
California-Specific Rules
California's long-arm statute (CCP Section 410.10) extends to the limits of due process: "A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution."
Landmark Cases
- International Shoe v. Washington (1945): Minimum contacts standard
- World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson (1980): Purposeful availment required
- Burger King v. Rudzewicz (1985): Reasonableness factors
- Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014): Narrowed general jurisdiction
- Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court (2017): Specific jurisdiction requires arising from forum contacts
Study This Term In
Related Terms
Diversity Jurisdiction
Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332 grants federal courts power to hear civil cases between citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, requiring complete diversity where no plaintiff shares citizenship with any defendant.
Venue
Venue under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391 determines the proper geographic location (judicial district) for a federal lawsuit, based on where defendants reside (if all in same state), where events occurred, or as a fallback, where any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction.
Motion to Dismiss
A motion to dismiss under FRCP Rule 12(b) is a pre-answer motion challenging the complaint on procedural or substantive grounds, including lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, insufficient service, or failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.